[PATCH v8 4/9] pci: OF: Fix the conversion of IO ranges into IO resources.

[Liviu Dudau]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:35:37PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 July 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:22:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I looked at the other drivers briefly, and I think you indeed fix the Tegra
> >> > driver with this but break the integrator driver as mentioned above.
> >> > The other callers of of_pci_range_to_resource() are apparently not
> >> > impacted as they recalculate the values they get.
> >>
> >> I would argue that integrator version is having broken assumptions. If it would
> >> try to allocate that IO range or request the resource as returned currently by
> >> of_pci_range_to_resource (without my patch) it would fail. I know because I did
> >> the same thing in my host bridge driver and it failed miserably. That's why I
> >> tried to patch it.
> >
> > The integrator code was just introduced and the reason for how it does things
> > is the way that of_pci_range_to_resource() works today. We tried to cope with
> > it and not change the existing behavior in order to not break any other drivers.
> >
> > It's certainly not fair to call the integrator version broken, it just works
> > around the common code having a quirky interface. We should probably have
> > done of_pci_range_to_resource better than it is today (I would have argued
> > for it to return an IORESOURCE_MEM with the CPU address), but it took long
> > enough to get that merged and I was sick of arguing about it.
> >
> >> If the IO space is memory mapped, then we use the port number, the io_offset
> >> and the PCI_IOBASE to get to the virtual address that, when accessed, will
> >> generate the correct addresses on the bus, based on what the host bridge has
> >> been configured.
> >>
> >> This is the current level of my understanding of PCI IO.
> 
> What is io_offset supposed to be and be based on?

io_offset is the offset that gets applied for each host bridge to the port number
to get the offset from PCI_IOBASE. Basically, the second host bridge will have
port numbers starting from zero like the first one in the system, but the io_offset
will be >= largest port number in the first host bridge.


> 
> > Your understanding is absolutely correct, and that's great because very few
> > people get that right. What I think we're really arguing about is what the
> > of_pci_range_to_resource is supposed to return. As you and Bjorn both pointed
> > out earlier, there are in fact two resources associated with the I/O window
> > and the flaw in the current implementation is that of_pci_range_to_resource
> > returns the numeric values for the IORESOURCE_MEM resource, but sets the
> > type to IORESOURCE_IO, which is offset from that by PCI_IOBASE.
> >
> > You try to fix that by making it return the correct IORESOURCE_IO resource,
> > which is a reasonable approach but you must not break drivers that rely
> > on the broken resource while doing that.
> >
> > The approach that I would have picked is to return the IORESOURCE_MEM
> > resource associated with the I/O window and pick a (basically random)
> > IORESOURCE_IO resource struct based on what hasn't been used and then
> > compute the appropriate io_offset from that. This approach of course
> > would also have required fixing up all drivers relying on the current
> > behavior.
> >
> > To be clear, I'm fine with you (and Bjorn if he cares) picking the
> > approach you like here, either one of these works fine as long as the
> > host drivers use the interface in the way it is defined.
> >
> >> Now, I believe Rob has switched entirely to using my series in some test that
> >> he has run and he hasn't encountered any issues, as long as one remembers in
> >> the host bridge driver to add the io_base offset to the .start resource. If
> >> not then I need to patch pci_v3.c.
> >
> > The crazy part of all these discussions is that basically nobody ever uses
> > I/O port access, so it's very hard to test and we don't even notice when
> > we get it wrong, but we end up spending most of the time for PCI host controller
> > reviews trying to get these right.
> 
> FWIW, I test i/o accesses with Versatile QEMU. The LSI53xxxx device in
> the model has a kconfig option to use i/o accesses. However, I have
> seen in the past this is an area where 2 wrongs can make a right.

:)

Best regards,
Liviu

> 
> Rob
> 

-- 
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world,  |
| but they're not |
| giving me the   |
 \ source code!  /
  ---------------
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯